On Mon, 30 May 2005, Sascha Wilde wrote:
> btw. is it possible, that the sourceforge ro CVS is sometimes a bit
> out of sync? Just did a cvs up, but still got revision 1.27 of
Nor sometimes, always: the sourceforge anoncvs has 24h or so lag.
Cheers,
-- Nikodemus Schemer: "Buddha is small, clean, and serious."
Lispnik: "Buddha is big, has hairy armpits, and laughs."

"Paul F. Dietz" <dietz@...> writes:
> * (LET ((X (MAKE-ARRAY 3 :INITIAL-ELEMENT 0 :ELEMENT-TYPE '(INTEGER 0 2))))
> (DECLARE (OPTIMIZE SAFETY))
> (SETF (AREF X 0) 3)
> (AREF X 0))
>
> 3
>
> According to the page for TYPE:
>
> "Within the lexical scope of an array type declaration,
> all references to array elements are assumed to satisfy
> the expressed array element type (as opposed to the
> upgraded array element type). A compiler can treat the
> code within the scope of the array type declaration as
> if each access of an array element were surrounded by
> an appropriate THE form."
Um, yes, but you haven't declared an array type anywhere. If you
actually insert a declaration, then you get the type error you might
be expecting, but formally your code does not contain a type error,
because the array construction explicitly means _exactly the same_ as
the construction with an element type of
(upgraded-array-element-type '(integer 0 2))
which includes 3.
Cheers,
Christophe

On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 08:29:11AM +0300, Juho Snellman wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 11:47:36AM +0200, Sascha Wilde wrote:
> > On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 05:35:14PM +0200, Sascha Wilde wrote:
> > > this are some small fixes I made to get x86-arch.c compile with gcc-4.0.0.
> >
> > after reading the replies, here a simplified version of the patch.
>
> Thanks, committed in 0.9.1.8. (I also applied the same changes to
> x86-64-arch.c).
Thanks!
btw. is it possible, that the sourceforge ro CVS is sometimes a bit
out of sync? Just did a cvs up, but still got revision 1.27 of
src/runtime/x86-arch.c for head...
cheers
sascha
--
Sascha Wilde
No sig today.

On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 11:47:36AM +0200, Sascha Wilde wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 05:35:14PM +0200, Sascha Wilde wrote:
> > this are some small fixes I made to get x86-arch.c compile with gcc-4.0.0.
>
> after reading the replies, here a simplified version of the patch.
Thanks, committed in 0.9.1.8. (I also applied the same changes to
x86-64-arch.c).
--
Juho Snellman

* (LET ((X (MAKE-ARRAY 3 :INITIAL-ELEMENT 0 :ELEMENT-TYPE '(INTEGER 0 2))))
(DECLARE (OPTIMIZE SAFETY))
(SETF (AREF X 0) 3)
(AREF X 0))
3
According to the page for TYPE:
"Within the lexical scope of an array type declaration,
all references to array elements are assumed to satisfy
the expressed array element type (as opposed to the
upgraded array element type). A compiler can treat the
code within the scope of the array type declaration as
if each access of an array element were surrounded by
an appropriate THE form."
Paul